keyso_post_projects_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only says 'deleting project' and gives the endpoint; it does not disclose that deletion is destructive, whether it is reversible, what authentication is required, what side effects occur, or what a response looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded with the action, and each line contributes something: the purpose, the method, the path, and an example URL. It is lean, though possibly too sparse for a destructive API.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a generic body parameter, the description is not complete enough for safe invocation. The agent cannot determine what JSON body identifies the project to delete, what response to expect, or what side effects are involved.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema describes all three parameters at a basic level (body, token, base_url), so the 100% coverage baseline applies. However, the body parameter is an open additionalProperties object and the description adds no explanation of what fields are expected, such as a project ID, so it doesn't truly clarify how to use the most important parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with 'Удаление проекта' (deleting project), clearly identifying the action and resource, and the HTTP method and path reinforce this. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like keyso_delete_wordstat_delete_project, but the project-specific deletion intent is still clear enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides the endpoint and example URL but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or situations where a different delete tool should be chosen, leaving usage entirely implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.